createTeam

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions HTTP response codes (201, 401, 422) which indicate success, authentication failure, and validation errors, adding some behavioral context. However, it doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether this is a mutating operation, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate team names. The response format examples are generic placeholders ('key': 'value') rather than actual team data structures.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise with the core purpose stated upfront, but the HTTP response documentation is verbose relative to its utility. The response examples use placeholder JSON ('key': 'value') rather than actual team data, making them less helpful. The structure separates purpose from response details clearly, but the response section could be more efficiently presented.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a creation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and complex nested parameters, this description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to explain the single required parameter or any of the 20+ nested attributes. The HTTP response codes add some context, but the placeholder examples don't show actual team creation responses. The agent would struggle to understand what data to provide.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning parameter descriptions are entirely missing from the structured schema. The tool description provides absolutely no information about parameters - it doesn't mention the 'data' parameter at all, let alone explain what attributes are needed to create a team. This leaves 1 required parameter and numerous nested properties completely undocumented in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Creates') and resource ('a new team'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling creation tools like createEnvironment, createService, or createIncidentType, which all follow the same 'Creates a new X' pattern.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling creation tools (createEnvironment, createService, etc.), but no indication of what distinguishes team creation from creating other resources. No prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual usage hints are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.